|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I |
A |
p |
|
II |
B |
q |
|
III |
C |
r |
|
IV |
D |
s |
|
none of the above |
E |
t |
|
F |
u |
|
|
none of the above |
v |
we are looking for a keyword that has a meaning similar to "none of the above"
The point of this functionality for us is that the business analyst is only interested in the values I to IV but possibly there are 20 or more values.
The semantics that we need would be such that this would translate into the following rules
I and A then p
II and B then q
III and C then r
IV and D then s
not(I) and not(II) and not(III) and not(IV) and E then t
not(I) and not(II) and not(III) and not(IV) and F then u
not(I) and not(II) and not(III) and not(IV) and not(A) and not(B) and not(C) and not(D) then v
I hope this answers your questions.
We will need this functionality pretty soon.....
Can you give an indication what the priority is for you guys for this functionality?
groetjes uit Nederland,
Joost
Joost,
Unfortunatelly, there is no feature implemented for that. But we are
discussing, specially the semantics we want to define to such statements
( we call them "else" and "otherwise" ).
If you have a real use case and you can describe it for us, it may
help on deciding which way to go, and at the same time fullfil your
needs in the future.
Our biggest questions are:
* should the "else/otherwise" part be fired only once if no rule is
triggered? or should it fire for each tuple that does not trigger
previous rules? What if rules in the "otherwise" group use different
tuples to activate?
* should "else/otherwise" apply to the whole LHS of the rules? Or should
there be a way to specify only part of the LHS (like a tag)?
Input welcome.
Edson
Joost de Vries wrote:
> Hi,
>
> We're using excel decision tables to specify our business rules.
> In one column we enumerate several condition values and describe a
> specific effect.
> We'd like to offer business analysts te possibility of describing
> succinctly what the effect is 'for all other values'.
> That could be described as an 'else' or 'default' rule.
>
> In other words; we don't want to burden business analysts with the
> necessity to enumerate all other values.
>
> What is the right way to do that?
>
> Thanks for you help.
>
> groetjes,
> Joost
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>rules-users mailing list
>rules-users@lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>
>
--
Edson Tirelli
Software Engineer - JBoss Rules Core Developer
Office: +55 11 3124-6000
Mobile: +55 11 9218-4151
JBoss, a division of Red Hat @ www.jboss.com
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users